Thread: Rand Paul wants a constitutional convention convened!

SEE: Rand Paul wants Balanced Budget Article V Convention!

[b][i]“The Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer and the Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal reported on January 20 that newly elected U.S. Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul supports calling an Article V convention to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA)â€

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

I am not very well versed at all in matters of taxation, and we should get back to the founding fathers intention constitutionally, but the statement above that says "Congress ought not raise money by borrowing," but when they to they "shall then lay a direct tax... for an amount sufficient to extinguish... deficit" -- leaves it open again for levying taxes upon the people because they did borrow. What's to stop them from doing again what they have already done -- borrow and borrow and borrow so that they have to levy more and more taxes again? And then things going right back to where they are?

Originally Posted by forest

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

I am not very well versed at all in matters of taxation, and we should get back to the founding fathers intention constitutionally, but the statement above that says "Congress ought not raise money by borrowing," but when they to they "shall then lay a direct tax... for an amount sufficient to extinguish... deficit" -- leaves it open again for levying taxes upon the people because they did borrow. What's to stop them from doing again what they have already done -- borrow and borrow and borrow so that they have to levy more and more taxes again? And then things going right back to where they are?

The answer is very simple! Our founder’s solution provides a very real moment of accountability if Congress spends more than is brought in from Imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes and borrows to meet its expenses which would then trigger the required apportioned tax among the States. And under this tax, unlike other taxes, each State’s Congressional Delegation is to return home with a bill reflecting its State’s apportioned share in extinguishing the deficit. And, the various State Governors and Legislatures are left with the responsibility to transfer their State’s financial obligation from the State Treasury into the United States Treasury or raise taxes within the State and then transfer that money into the federal treasury to meet the State’s financial obligation in a time period set by Congress.

This moment of accountability, when each State’s Congressional Delegation must return home with a bill in hand, is what our big spenders and progressive members of Congress fear with a passion. Tell me, what do you think would happen if California’s big spending pinko Congressional Delegation returned home and placed a bill in Jerry Brown’s hand for the deficit created by Congress?

But aside from the very real moment of accountability created by our founder’s intended method to deal with financial emergencies, there is another reason for our pinko progressive crowd condemning the apportioned tax. Those states with large pinko populations, such as New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc., want their one man one vote part of the Constitution enforced when spending money from the federal treasury. But when it comes to one vote one dollar in filling the national treasury, they want Congress to “tax the freaken richâ€

Sounds like a solid idea to me. I like the idea of that tax plan.

It would devestate and probably wipe out the democrat liberal party as well but a more moderate dem party could still exist.

If the country doesn't have enough money for all the plush programs no more borrowing from invisible sources. Take it from the peoples pockets directly as they can see who's doing this. Plus those who contribute more to any defecit get more respresentation in congress... lets see the poor managing to get those who support handout programs and instead tell them to work like the rest of us have to.

JWK
is moment of accountability, when each State’s Congressional Delegation must return home with a bill in hand, is what our big spenders and progressive members of Congress fear with a passion. Tell me, what do you think would happen if California’s big spending pinko Congressional Delegation returned home and placed a bill in Jerry Brown’s hand for the deficit created by Congress?

Ok... thanks but since I'm not educated in taxes other than surfacely, could you answer your above question via an example?? I think... I get what you mean and I did think the idea sounds good anyway but... I'm a linear learner. Would there still be an IRS in this proposal?

Originally Posted by forest

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

I am not very well versed at all in matters of taxation, and we should get back to the founding fathers intention constitutionally, but the statement above that says "Congress ought not raise money by borrowing," but when they to they "shall then lay a direct tax... for an amount sufficient to extinguish... deficit" -- leaves it open again for levying taxes upon the people because they did borrow. What's to stop them from doing again what they have already done -- borrow and borrow and borrow so that they have to levy more and more taxes again? And then things going right back to where they are?

Alright from my understanding.

In 2011 we are set for a $1.65 trillion dollar defecit. Now the law would state we should NOT have that defecit but if we do this happens. In 2012 a new "gap" tax is filed for 2012 only to raise in full the $1.65 trillion dollars through taxing each state in by the members in congress. If a state has 10 seats in the house they pay 10 shares, if a state has 1 seat in the house they pay 1 share, and keep in mind house seats go by population size.

That means then in 2012 that state would have to raise additional X amount of money through taxation, maybe its corporate tax, business tax, tax on the people, or however state raised.

Now it sounds at the point horrible right, they spend to much because they can and we can get double taxed.

But wait, this means the legislators in congress have to return home and also explain the extra budget filler tax.

They can either say "I voted everytime to cut the budget, cut spending, cut massive government programs and so forth". Or they can say "Oops, I voted to increase the size of government and increase spending, I voted to give money to foreign countries and foreign nationals."

This would make it very clear to the people who's really supporting them and people would real quick force their congressman to cut spending or be out of the office very quick. We can see that as today any congressman that actually sponsors a tax increase usually gets voted out fairly quick.

Just look at the mainstream people now. Ask them who their state legislators are or their fed legislators and most have no clue. They voted for the imcumbent or the sweet talker but really have no clue on their stances besides a couple of age old hot topics such as abortion, gay rights, and such.
But th

forest wrote,

Would there still be an IRS in this proposal?

From my point of view? No! As a federal income tax is unconstitutional.

The feds would have an agency to enforce impost fees and duties on imports and exports. This would create fair trade as opposed to free trade. Liabilities to the state above and beyond this collection of imposts and duties would then be divided up accordingly within the stated parameters of the constitution. This is where the rubber would meet the road, as the federal legislators would have to bring home the bill. Accountability is localized and scrutinized, up close and personal!

The states would have whatever agency they wished for the purpose of raising taxes that was fair and equitable. Once again this is where close scrutiny would come in to play. Take a close look at your share! Then look at the idiot who strapped you with that debt. Makes you want to sit up straight and pay attention. Tar and feathers would be at a premium if we elected the idiots we have now under this policy of accountability. When a man goes for your wallet he should be a man about it and do it within arms reach! Not from a thousand or so miles away. JMO Any ideas on how to get them closer?

I am opposed to a Constitutional Convention over taxation. There may be an issue one day that warrants one, but balancing the budget isn't one of them. I think the better alternative is to elect 4 more US Senators from the Republican Party, pass the FairTax, then pass a simple law in Congress that requires we have a balanced budget within 5 years thereafter, by:

1. phasing out all federally funded individual welfare programs such as food stamps, free school lunch, HUD Housing, SCHIP, MediCaid, WIC, TANF and so forth and turn all this poverty resolution back to the states to fund or cure;

2. cut all grants and payments to 501 C 3 tax-exempt not-for-profits;

3. cut all grants and subsidies to businesses and corporations;

4. cut all foreign aid;

5. cut all federal farm subsidies;

6. cut all Trade Adjustment Act funding;

7. cut all federal contributions to unemployment;

8. cut every federal dime spent on or given to a non-citizen;

9. cut all federal funding for higher education;

10. cut all federal funds for Head Start, More at 4, etc.;

11. cut all federal funding of free trade agreements;

12. cut all federal contributions to rural development.

Then:

13. pass 25% federal matching funds for state private school vouchers in the amount of $1,000 per student for regular classroom, $2,000 per student for special education instruction, with vouchers available only for US citizens and legal permanent residents, and start privatizing K-12 education based on combined state, federal and local funding of $4,000 per student for regular classroom and $8,000 for special education classroom study which will save American Taxpayers $300 billion a year.

Then:

14. pass a Constitutional Amendment that requires a balanced federal budget thereafter so the disaster we're in now never ever happens again in the United States.

Then:

15. reduce the federal FairTax general revenue rate from 14.91% to 10% for a combined total rate of 18.09% with the 8.09% still earmarked to fund Social Security and MediCare.

And this assumes we've taken Judy's 5 Steps To Fix The US Economy:

1. stop illegal immigration and reduce legal immigation
2. pass the FairTax
3. protect our trade
4. legalize/regulate/tax under 2 the illegal drug trade
5. drill baby drill

THANKS guys! Your explanations and ideas have helped me to understand better the issue. Now I have to ponder them for awhile to determine what I think is good....

Thanks again

Originally Posted by Judy

I am opposed to a Constitutional Convention over taxation. There may be an issue one day that warrants one, but balancing the budget isn't one of them. I think the better alternative is to elect 4 more US Senators from the Republican Party, pass the FairTax, then pass a simple law in Congress that requires we have a balanced budget within 5 years thereafter, by:

1. phasing out all federally funded individual welfare programs such as food stamps, free school lunch, HUD Housing, SCHIP, MediCaid, WIC, TANF and so forth and turn all this poverty resolution back to the states to fund or cure;

2. cut all grants and payments to 501 C 3 tax-exempt not-for-profits;

3. cut all grants and subsidies to businesses and corporations;

4. cut all foreign aid;

5. cut all federal farm subsidies;

6. cut all Trade Adjustment Act funding;

7. cut all federal contributions to unemployment;

8. cut every federal dime spent on or given to a non-citizen;

9. cut all federal funding for higher education;

10. cut all federal funds for Head Start, More at 4, etc.;

11. cut all federal funding of free trade agreements;

12. cut all federal contributions to rural development.

Then:

13. pass 25% federal matching funds for state private school vouchers in the amount of $1,000 per student for regular classroom, $2,000 per student for special education instruction, with vouchers available only for US citizens and legal permanent residents, and start privatizing K-12 education based on combined state, federal and local funding of $4,000 per student for regular classroom and $8,000 for special education classroom study which will save American Taxpayers $300 billion a year.

Then:

14. pass a Constitutional Amendment that requires a balanced federal budget thereafter so the disaster we're in now never ever happens again in the United States.

Then:

15. reduce the federal FairTax general revenue rate from 14.91% to 10% for a combined total rate of 18.09% with the 8.09% still earmarked to fund Social Security and MediCare.

And this assumes we've taken Judy's 5 Steps To Fix The US Economy:

1. stop illegal immigration and reduce legal immigation
2. pass the FairTax
3. protect our trade
4. legalize/regulate/tax under 2 the illegal drug trade
5. drill baby drill

I do gotta agree with Judy here though. I'm not opposed to a constitutiona; convention but as far as the budget and taxes I'm not so sure its the right way to go. Problem we do face is while state legislatures are less likely imo to be corrupted by big politics US Congress politicians on both sides will stand against many of the needed fixes. Best way though is if we can win a landslide election of new commers and get rid of 95% of incumbents on both sides of the aisle.

few things.

1. Welfare, I agree fully it needs to all be tossed out at the federal level, allow states to do what they wish on their dime as long as forced to have a balanced budget. Yet politicians on both sides will be against this.

2. I think cutting anything to 501c's can be done. However it needs to go further doing something about 501c's from lobbying while keeping a tax exempt status. Or at least stopping them from endorsing politicians or donating to political causes.

3. I agree again cut any fed money to business's and corporations. Yet again problem is many dems and reps both have their hand in that cookie jar.

4. Cut all foreign aid, think that can be done. But imo needs to go further. Some of these countries we're currently protecting or helping fix their issues should be paying at least our costs. Why do we pay a country for us to protect them?

5. Think cutting farm subsidies can be done. I'm a bit iffy on this myself though. I might like the idea of instead allowing some form of smaller subsidy as long as said farm has a 75% American citizen workforce.

6. Don't know much about it, but sounds reasonable that I think it could be defunded.

7. Not sure how this helps. I do like the unemployment program as long as its initial intent is kept and no extensions. I do like a hand-up system which its designed as but not a handout system.

8. Think will be hard to go as far as legal immigrants, but very possible far as illegals and newly arrived legal immigrants. I do agree though of course.

9. Don't think it will fly cutting all federal aid for higher education. But I do agree and think it also needs to be cut for K-12 as well. Instead more taxes go to the state and the state manages their own education taking it fully away from the feds besides a very specific set of standards for across the country set by the feds.

10. Think while be a headache think there could be enough support to cut the horrible headstart program.

11. Think it may be easy enough cutting out free trade agreements with a non traitor president and few less incumbents in the house and senate.

12. I agree and def think its possible to cut out federal funds to rural development.

13. Hitting the education system I don't think will fly. But I like the idea of privatizing it a bit more but still hesitant. Far as vouchers however I don't think they should be just available to anyone. I'd want some sort of testing of possible student and an evaluation of the student and parent to qualify. I by no means want to be handing vouchers to kids who underperform with no interest in school or to parents who could afford to pay themselves or parents who don't spend time with their kids assisting them if they are falling behind. I'd also want it a set of kickout guidelines set for what would kick a student out of school to basically remove trouble makers (drugs, weapons, many fights, threats to staff, and serious other negative behavior).

14. Gonna be hard passing an amendment but with enough incumbents tossed out in both sides and likely more reps in its possible but a hard hard fight. One of the most important things though imo.

15. no comment, I support the Fairtax but dunno the numbers to how it'd work at that rate.

Lotta no brainers really but our problem is politicians with their hand in the cookie jar on both sides and we're talking about not just putting a lid on the cookie jar but smashing it with a sledge!

Three more I'd add though.

16. Unions cannot donate to political campaigns or lobby for anything outside their immediate area for that specific union. However a Union can talk to their members about who they feel the workers should support and who they shouldn't support. But the Union should have NO power to donate to who they choose from the dues paid in by members w/o the members consent and as we know you'll never get even 90% consent its simply bad.

17. Monopoly laws for Unions. We don't allow a business to grow to powerful shooting out any potential competition and harming consumers. Well we shouldn't allow Unions to grow to powerful harming all Americans. Something like a specific Union can only operate in a specific state and cannot have direct ties to another Union of another state.

18. Public Unions forbidden to strike during work hours as it harms the taxpayers. Any Public Union member who strikes during work hours is to be immediately fired by law as it would be an illegal strike.